Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Voting Rights: What It Means

More from our inbox:

To the Editor:

Re “Justices Bolster G.O.P. States’ Push for Voting Limits” (front page, July 2):

The Supreme Court, in a 6-to-3 decision, upheld two restrictive voting provisions in Arizona, ruling that they did not meet the definition of overt discriminatory behavior. This opens the floodgates to state legislatures nationwide to feel emboldened to release a torrent of new voting restrictions, more secure in the belief that such provisions will not be struck down by the court.

Apparently if the justices do not discern obvious discriminatory intent, and the restrictions are not so blatantly biased against voting access for one particular population segment, they can pass muster with the court.

Our access to free and unimpeded voting took a hit on Thursday. The ruling may not be a full frontal assault on voting access, but it surely opens us up to more attacks on the flanks.

Ken Derow
Swarthmore, Pa.

To the Editor:

The 6-to-3 decision by the Supreme Court regarding Arizona’s voting rules upholds voter confidence in elections. People in Arizona can vote by mail several weeks in advance. Hardly onerous.

It is time for progressives to stop assuming that minorities do not have the ability or even the desire to vote with the confidence that their vote really counts. It is condescending and highly insulting.

Tom O’Hare
Charlestown, R.I.

To the Editor:

The Supreme Court’s retrograde decision in the Arizona voting case clothes itself in the fig leaf of legal technicalities at the expense of the compelling lessons of history and justice. The only consolation will be the ultimate verdict of history, something that Chief Justice John Roberts ostensibly cares about.

In his case, and that of his five conservative colleagues, their legacy will join them with the notorious courts of Roger B. Taney (of Dred Scott infamy) and Melville Fuller (of Plessy v. Ferguson infamy). It is small consolation given the likely consequences of this irresponsible decision, but a deserved rebuke to the most irredeemable court in more than 100 years.

Andrew W. Koppel
Arlington, Mass.

To the Editor:

The decision by the Supreme Court to uphold Arizona’s voting restrictions is thought of as a setback for voting rights, particularly for brown and Black and poor people. However, it may be a blessing in disguise.

The restrictions, outlawing ballot collections by others than family, mail carriers and election officials, and allowing votes to count only in the proper precinct, are easily dealt with by energizing voting rights and other civil rights groups to get moving. Don’t collect ballots, collect voters, and make sure they get to the proper precinct.

Stop whining, work hard, do what is necessary to ensure the voting rights of the disadvantaged, and leave behind a structure that will endure and protect the voting rights the state of Arizona and the conservatives on the Supreme Court want to take away.

Leonard Malkin
Troy, Mich.

Tax Fraud Charges Against Trump’s Company

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Business Charged With ‘Audacious’ Tax Fraud” (front page, July 2):

An indictment against the Trump Organization and Allen H. Weisselberg charges that both engaged in a tax fraud scheme that one of the lawyers for the prosecution called “sweeping and audacious.”

But in a country where the top 1 percent regularly avoid paying their fair shares of taxes, the Trump Organization’s alleged shenanigans are neither impressive nor surprising.

Some may have expected much more out of this investigation, but Mr. Trump is no Bernie Madoff. He has always been a garden-variety grifter, bending the law to his own ends and letting his underlings do the dirty work.

Betty J. Cotter
Shannock, R.I.

For Federal Funding of Campaigns

To the Editor:

Re “Online Trickery in Fund-Raising Entraps Seniors” (front page, June 27):

I have been a professional political fund-raiser for most of my working life, and am now retired. While previously unfamiliar with the fleecing of older contributors, I have long believed that political campaigns should be financed by the government.

Even the most well-meaning, honest candidate cannot help but notice who is giving large sums of money — many easily managing to skirt the limits for contributing. Big donors to candidates and political action committees are certainly given access that no regular donor can expect.

In addition, there is little oversight on how the money is spent. Lunches, hotels, trips etc. are all necessary for many political candidates, but much of the money is wasted through excess and lack of supervision.

Only federal intervention can level this critical playing field. No doubt, even with federal funding of campaigns, the wealthy will find ways to contribute to candidates and gain access. But let’s make it harder and illegal to facilitate this unfair access!

Sheila Levin
New York

When a Rape Occurs in the Workplace

To the Editor:

Re “A Baseball Player Raped Me and I’ll Be Silent No Longer” (Sunday Review, June 27):

Buried in the poignant, maddening tale of one woman’s rape by a baseball player while she worked on a newspaper’s sports desk is a message to corporate executives and human resources officers: A very capable professional wouldn’t accept a job in a city where the man who raped her lived. That’s a recruitment problem, and one that deserves attention.

Kat O’Brien’s story has become familiar in this age of #MeToo, which has finally allowed women everywhere to reveal their stories of harassment and abuse, but perhaps frustratingly so: How many women have been harassed and raped while on the job? How many more have to endure it?

We should all be moved by her tragic tale, simply as human beings. But I am a realist. Business often trumps all in the United States, and threats to business continuity may be one way to persuade some people to take workplace harassment seriously.

So memo to H.R.: You have, at the very least, a recruitment problem.

Jeanne Bonner
West Hartford, Conn.

The Decline of Yellow Cabs

To the Editor:

Re “Your Ride Home Could Cost as Much as the Flight” (news article, June 16):

The loss of yellow cabs is a serious problem, especially for seniors, parents of young children, and the disabled. I hope that our new mayor and City Council members find solutions. (They can begin with drivers who went broke buying medallions.)

I am in my 80s, and on a rare night out, I had to walk home in the dark, in the rain. I later downloaded Uber, but had problems with it. (Given the price inflation, I’m not sorry.)

When the tourists return, things will get even worse.

Paula Glatzer
New York

Source: Read Full Article